Why we Need Informed Consent Applied to Surveillance Technology
The age of surveillance is already here. Technologies of mass surveillance such as facial recognition, surveillance drones and license plate readers are prevalent. However, there are still opportunities for protecting privacy as a basic human right. In order to accomplish this goal, I suggest that surveillance ethics should learn from bioethics. In the field of bioethics, historical reflection has shown the need for a patient’s right to informed consent.
According to the article “Informed Consent” by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the concept “replaced a medical ethos founded on trust in physicians’ decisions, often on the assumption that “doctor knows best,” with an ethos that sought to put patients in charge of their own care.” 1 The change was partially a reaction to medical atrocities committed by Nazi doctors. Such atrocities helped to demonstrate that ethical healthcare was not only about a doctor’s opinion, but also about a patient’s free will.
Similarly, surveillance technology should not only be about security experts planning for a safer society. In order for surveillance to be ethical, the free will of the public must also be involved. The right to watch another human being without their informed consent is no less questionable than the right to perform a minor surgery on an unwilling patient. In both cases, the concept of “the greater good” does not necessarily outweigh the need for informed consent.
Importantly, we need to recognize the distinction between public vs private space. Public spaces are areas where an individual should reasonably expect not to be alone. Grocery stores, parks, restaurants, schools and government buildings are all public spaces. In contrast, private property and the household are private spaces. Because of these basic expectations, it is especially hard to not violate informed consent when watching someone in a private space. Surveillance should be used only in a private area if the owner of that space agrees with a formal signature.
In public spaces, it makes sense that there should be signs and notifications telling the public that they are being watched. By reading the signs and notifications, the individual can provide meaningful consent before entering the surveillance area. Additionally, information should be available on request alongside explanations about how the data will be processed.
In 2016, the European Union passed a law called the “General Data Protection Regulation,” which allows individuals the right to request that an organization delete their data. In some circumstances, the organization would be obligated to delete the data as requested. 2 A similar principle could apply to surveillance. Before a person is watched, he or she should be told of the purpose behind the data collection. If the information collected does not end up helping to accomplish that goal, then why shouldn’t the individual have a right to request that the data is deleted? If surveillance cameras in public spaces are designed only to help prosecute criminals, then why shouldn’t footage of non-criminal behavior be deleted upon request?
I believe surveillance must be rooted in collaboration. It should not be a one sided exchange. Ultimately, the need for collaboration originates from the golden rule. One cannot wish to be treated according to a standard of which he or she is unaware. And this is precisely the reason why informed consent should be introduced into the world of surveillance technology.
Works Cited
1
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/informed-consent/
2
https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/